One of the things the human brain craves in order to function effectively is a sense of status. Status can be defined as a position of value, a ranking of being equal to or more than others in one way or another (smarter, funnier, healthier, richer, more organized, stronger...). Our brains seem to work on status subconsciously. When we feel that our status is elevated, our brain releases dopamine and other “happy” neurochemicals that actually make us feel better. The downside of status is that while it makes people focus, there are always winners and losers. It forces us to feel competitive and to see other people as a threat. It impacts relationships and reduces collaboration in the workplace.
David Rock says that the only good solution involves the idea of playing against yourself. Competing with yourself and competing with others harnesses the exact same brain circuitry. You can experience the power of the thrill of “beating the other guy” by making the other guy YOU. It gives you a chance to feel ever-increasing status without threatening others.
When others try to give us advice or solve a problem for us, we lose our sense of status and feel threatened. When we give corrective feedback, we diminish the status of others, leaving them feeling dependent on others of greater status. “The more you can help people find their own insights, the easier it will be to help others be effective.” Finding one’s own answers elevates our perceived status.
Source: Rock, D. (2009). Your Brain at Work. HarperCollins Publishers. New York, NY
Research Finding #2 (Case Western Reserve University)
Researchers observed brain images when participants were coached using two different coaching tones. One encouraged envisaging a positive future, and the other set a more standard tone by focusing on a person's failings and what he or she ought to do. The more positive coaches stimulated better cognitive functioning and increased perceptual accuracy and openness in the person being coached even 5-7 days after the coaching. Emphasizing weaknesses, flaws, or other shortcomings, or even trying to "fix" the problem for the coached person had an opposite effect. The major implication is that people typically coach others in education with a bias toward the negative, and correcting what the person is doing that is wrong. The Case Western University research suggests "that this closes down future, sustainable change, as we expected."
Source: Case Western Reserve University (2010, Nov 19). Coaching with compassion can 'light up' human thoughts. ScienceDaily.
Research Finding #3 (John Hattie)
John Hattie, in his synthesis of 800 meta-analyses, posits that when teachers make learning visible, teachers see learning through the eyes of students, while students see teaching as pivotal to their learning. The evidence suggests the biggest effects on student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching. Of the 6 identified domains (student, home, school, curriculum, teacher, and teaching), “microteaching,” ranked highest in the teacher domain (with an 0.88 effect size) and 4th overall of the 138 ranked influences. Microteaching, in teacher education programs, typically involves conducting a lesson and then engaging in post-discussion about the lesson. In one of the contributing meta-analysis the conclusion was that “theory, demonstration, and practice, as well as feedback and coaching,” be included.
When bringing the evidence together, Hattie says developing teachers’ accounts of classroom experience is key. “By questioning one another, eliciting replays and rehearsals, using evidence in these narratives, and offering and revising interpretations and explanations,” teachers can build their principles of practice from both their conceptual training roots, as well as the intricacies of the classroom.
Source: Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge. New York, NY
Research Finding #4 (Carol Sanford)
One research study by Carol Sanford found that children by the early school age could no longer correctly interpret whether they were following simple instructions. However they would defend their responses as accurate even when shown photos of themselves not in compliance. However, with only as few short weeks of being asked to reflect on the accuracy of their response to the same exercise, without any external input, they became increasingly accurate at judging their own success. It is a capability systematically eroded in our culture, but one that can be regained with practice.
Sanford concludes that external feedback actually reduces one's capacity for accurate self-reflection. Continuing feedback reinforces our expectation that others will and should tell us how we are doing, and it reduces our capacity to be self-reflective and self-accountable. Feedback best comes in the form of questions that increase self-reflection and therefore self-governance.